Some are still in the dark on Obama

[Guns Guns Guns]

All I know is, when your dream of a Socialist government is realized, the result will eventually be, the government confiscating property from those who have more than others. You wanted a dream world where everyone has the same amount, well... that's how you get there! Many idiots like you, will reel off some stupidity like... "We should all share the wealth!" But when you count the number of people in the world, and divide by the wealth in the world, you come up with something like $30,000 per person. You think you might be able to live the rest of your life at your current lifestyle, on $30k? ...That's not 'per year' but total. Pinheads have no clue as to how much better off we are than most of the rest of the world. I have often said, our impoverished have a richer lifestyle than most 'average citizens' elsewhere.
As for your last line, I know that probably made you feel good, to spew a bunch of crap about something you know nothing about, but you really know nothing about me and who I am, or how much money I have, or anything else. You're flailing, because you can't articulate a point here, and it seems every point you make, I've either gotten you to reverse your position on it, because of how stupid I made you look, or you've simply ignored my points and resort to character smearing.
Greed is a fact of the human condition, it exists whether we like it or not, and there isn't a damn thing we can do about it, really. Trying to tax greed out of people, is FUTILE! The more you levy tax burdens, the more greedy people become. They find ways around your devices, loopholes, catch-22s, shelters... or they move their wealth to another country entirely. In the end, greedy people are just as greedy as before, if not, more so. Here's a simple example: A guy is making $100k a year, and he routinely gives 2% to charity ($2,000), you think that is "greedy" and he should be able to give more, so you raise his taxes by 2% ($2,000)... what will this guy do next year? Will he still give his regular 2% and at the same time, fork over another 2% in taxes? No... the 'greediness' kicks in and he says, fuck that, $2k is all they are getting, and he doesn't contribute to charity as usual. Now, if the government were able to operate at the same efficiency as most NPOs, this situation breaks even.... but... we know for a fact, the government is much less efficient, so that same $2k that would have been donated to an NPO, is now acquired through the tax base, where about 80% of the amount is eaten up in administration and bureaucratic red tape. By levying a mere 2% increase in tax, you have deprived the needy. In other words, your socialist policy and trying to 'even the field' actually hurts the poor. Now, I am just as benevolent as you. I don't want people to suffer, just like you. I wish for everyone to have enough food, clothing, housing, and medical care, and I contribute my time AND money to charitable causes in my community. I'm not a less caring person than you, I am not more greedy than you, I just have a completely different perspective and understanding of things than you. I know that your way doesn't work, and actually creates MORE poverty in the end. I know that your ideas have failed every time they have been tried, because they stifle the human spirit and freedom to succeed. And if I truly did not care, I wouldn't have ever bothered responding to you.

All that, and not a single verifiable fact?

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

How many times do I have to repeat myself? I am not advocating Socialism.

When you make statements like "Capitalists have had 80 years to come to the plate, it's time to try a new way..." It sounds like you are backing Socialism an Socialist government. Unless you are now going to argue that Marxism isn't Socialism, I am not sure how you wiggle out of this one?

Let the free market function. Let people acquire as much money as they want. The only stipulation I have is some of that money has to be shared with those in need. Why do you keep talking about interfering with the freedom of the entrepreneurial spirit?

Because that is what you have to do in order to implement Socialism and replace Capitalism. You know... the new way we haven't tried the past 80 years, while Capitalists have failed to bring anything to the plate?

As I pointed out in my last post, the actions you wish to take, actually HURT the poor MORE! You don't eliminate greed, you make greed WORSE!

It seems you are stuck on something you read or heard many years ago, the demonization of Socialism and Communism, resulting in your inability to understand social programs.

What I am stuck on is that pesky propaganda being taught in World History! Where every wonderful Socialist Utopian plan has failed miserably and ended in disaster. You can't "demonize" something that is already inherently evil! All the diseases and plagues in history, haven't claimed as many human lives as Socialism and Communism.

That is the reality that's been created. In the past wealhy folks paid a high percent in taxes, much higher than today and it didn't stop them from acquiring more money and it didn't dampen their entrepreneurial spirit. Check it out. Do some research. I've never known anyone who is so ignorant of history except their holding on to the fear and hatred of anything with the word "social" which was programmed into the population, years ago, during the cold war.

No, that's the reality that has always been. In the past, 'wealthy folks' paid taxes the same way as middle class folks, based on their incomes. The same way the wealthy folks pay taxes today. We don't charge taxes bases on a person's wealth, they are levied on the basis of INCOME earned, not wealth owned. In the past, very few wealthy people actually earned INCOME. They had already earned their income, on the way to becoming WEALTHY! For the most part, they owned all kinds of things, but corporations were established as separate entities, and taxed according to profits, which determined the price of goods and services to the consumer. The individual paid income tax, but since they earned no real income, there was nothing to tax. The rate was up around 91% on income earned, but this never mattered, because they didn't earn income. All of these things have changed over the years with the tax codes, but one thing remains the same, we still do not tax people according to their WEALTH!

Yes, it is like that and getting much worse every day.

So we can check off what you stupidly said earlier about not wanting America to become a place where you couldn't safely go into some neighborhoods?

If you go back to the time when the middle class had a decent piece of the pie things were quite different

Oh really? When was that, back when the Carnegie's and Vanderbilt's owned everything, and we built the railroad across a nation on the backs of immigrants? Maybe you are talking about back when people in the South either owned a cotton plantation, or worked on one? Or perhaps you are talking about more recently, when a typical auto worker made $24 an hour building shitty cars no one would buy, and routinely went on strike to demand more money? Please enlighten me on this time in history when the middle class had a decent piece of the pie?

and that's what's at the core of my political position, besides fairness.

It's your notion of Utopian "fairness" that I have the most trouble with. "Life is NOT FAIR! Deal with it!" ~My Mom (circa 1973)

Considering my love of "motoring" there was a time when people could travel around North America (the US and Canada) and not be so concernd about what area they were in.

Unfortunately, we can no longer afford to travel to Detroit to get mugged, because gas is $5 a gallon now.

More poeple had a decent shot at life.

Oh really? You mean, before FDR and LBJ and all your Socialist programs to help the needy and poor? How the fuck can that be, Apple?

As statistics show the gap between workers and management was not that spead out. That has changed. Upper management wages have seen a huge increase while worker wages stagnated. Add to that the high unemployment and what do people expect?

You can make statistics tell you whatever you want to hear, Apple. Much of what you note is the result of advancement in technology. Once was a time, a skilled and competent worker was required, and sought after, because things weren't easy to make, the work was much more complicated and difficult, both mentally and physically. Computers changed things a lot, technology, robotics, etc. Now a company can hire much fewer and less skilled workers, to produce the same thing. Therefore, the upper level management becomes the 'brains' of the outfit, and what is highly sought after. We can't do a thing about this, it's part of progress. The goal shouldn't be to take from upper management and give to the worker, it should be, to encourage and reward competence and promote as many workers to upper management as possible.

[Guns Guns Guns]

When you make statements like "Capitalists have had 80 years to come to the plate, it's time to try a new way..." It sounds like you are backing Socialism an Socialist government. Unless you are now going to argue that Marxism isn't Socialism, I am not sure how you wiggle out of this one? Because that is what you have to do in order to implement Socialism and replace Capitalism. You know... the new way we haven't tried the past 80 years, while Capitalists have failed to bring anything to the plate? As I pointed out in my last post, the actions you wish to take, actually HURT the poor MORE! You don't eliminate greed, you make greed WORSE! What I am stuck on is that pesky propaganda being taught in World History! Where every wonderful Socialist Utopian plan has failed miserably and ended in disaster. You can't "demonize" something that is already inherently evil! All the diseases and plagues in history, haven't claimed as many human lives as Socialism and Communism. No, that's the reality that has always been. In the past, 'wealthy folks' paid taxes the same way as middle class folks, based on their incomes. The same way the wealthy folks pay taxes today. We don't charge taxes bases on a person's wealth, they are levied on the basis of INCOME earned, not wealth owned. In the past, very few wealthy people actually earned INCOME. They had already earned their income, on the way to becoming WEALTHY! For the most part, they owned all kinds of things, but corporations were established as separate entities, and taxed according to profits, which determined the price of goods and services to the consumer. The individual paid income tax, but since they earned no real income, there was nothing to tax. The rate was up around 91% on income earned, but this never mattered, because they didn't earn income. All of these things have changed over the years with the tax codes, but one thing remains the same, we still do not tax people according to their WEALTH! So we can check off what you stupidly said earlier about not wanting America to become a place where you couldn't safely go into some neighborhoods?
Oh really? When was that, back when the Carnegie's and Vanderbilt's owned everything, and we built the railroad across a nation on the backs of immigrants? Maybe you are talking about back when people in the South either owned a cotton plantation, or worked on one? Or perhaps you are talking about more recently, when a typical auto worker made $24 an hour building shitty cars no one would buy, and routinely went on strike to demand more money? Please enlighten me on this time in history when the middle class had a decent piece of the pie? It's your notion of Utopian "fairness" that I have the most trouble with. "Life is NOT FAIR! Deal with it!" ~My Mom (circa 1973) Unfortunately, we can no longer afford to travel to Detroit to get mugged, because gas is $5 a gallon now. Oh really? You mean, before FDR and LBJ and all your Socialist programs to help the needy and poor? How the fuck can that be, Apple? You can make statistics tell you whatever you want to hear, Apple. Much of what you note is the result of advancement in technology. Once was a time, a skilled and competent worker was required, and sought after, because things weren't easy to make, the work was much more complicated and difficult, both mentally and physically. Computers changed things a lot, technology, robotics, etc. Now a company can hire much fewer and less skilled workers, to produce the same thing. Therefore, the upper level management becomes the 'brains' of the outfit, and what is highly sought after. We can't do a thing about this, it's part of progress. The goal shouldn't be to take from upper management and give to the worker, it should be, to encourage and reward competence and promote as many workers to upper management as possible.

All that, and still no verifiable facts?

[apple0154]

All I know is, when your dream of a Socialist government is realized, the result will eventually be, the government confiscating property from those who have more than others. You wanted a dream world where everyone has the same amount,...

How many times do I have to tell you that is NOT what I am advocating. I'll put it in simple terms. If everyone has a dinner and one guy has 50 dinners, fine. If one person does not have a dinner then the guy with 50 dinners gives one to the guy who has no dinner leaving the 50-dinner guy with 49 dinners. Now do you understand?

....well... that's how you get there! Many idiots like you, will reel off some stupidity like... "We should all share the wealth!" But when you count the number of people in the world, and divide by the wealth in the world, you come up with something like $30,000 per person. You think you might be able to live the rest of your life at your current lifestyle, on $30k? ...That's not 'per year' but total. Pinheads have no clue as to how much better off we are than most of the rest of the world. I have often said, our impoverished have a richer lifestyle than most 'average citizens' elsewhere.

And many go hungry when feeding a person can cost very little. Homes are empty across the country when people are homeless. There is a suburb near Las Vegas there were/are 167,000 vacant homes. Empty. Abandoned. And they are deteriorating due to insects, etc. http://www.lvrj.com/business/nevada-...118026629.html Have you ever heard of such an absurd way for a society to function?

As for your last line, I know that probably made you feel good, to spew a bunch of crap about something you know nothing about, but you really know nothing about me and who I am, or how much money I have, or anything else. You're flailing, because you can't articulate a point here, and it seems every point you make, I've either gotten you to reverse your position on it, because of how stupid I made you look, or you've simply ignored my points and resort to character smearing.

You told us you have a big investment in Germany. You told us you don't want to bring the money here due to taxes. I don't need to hear any more in order to figure out what type of person you are.

As for reversing my position, you're delusional.

Greed is a fact of the human condition, it exists whether we like it or not, and there isn't a damn thing we can do about it, really. Trying to tax greed out of people, is FUTILE! The more you levy tax burdens, the more greedy people become. They find ways around your devices, loopholes, catch-22s, shelters...

Finally you said something correct. Yes, people will continue to be greedy and figure out ways to get/make money. More on that later.

.....or they move their wealth to another country entirely. In the end, greedy people are just as greedy as before, if not, more so. Here's a simple example: A guy is making $100k a year, and he routinely gives 2% to charity ($2,000), you think that is "greedy" and he should be able to give more, so you raise his taxes by 2% ($2,000)... what will this guy do next year? Will he still give his regular 2% and at the same time, fork over another 2% in taxes? No... the 'greediness' kicks in and he says, fuck that, $2k is all they are getting, and he doesn't contribute to charity as usual. Now, if the government were able to operate at the same efficiency as most NPOs, this situation breaks even.... but... we know for a fact, the government is much less efficient, so that same $2k that would have been donated to an NPO, is now acquired through the tax base, where about 80% of the amount is eaten up in administration and bureaucratic red tape. By levying a mere 2% increase in tax, you have deprived the needy. In other words, your socialist policy and trying to 'even the field' actually hurts the poor.

If he has more than $2,000 to part with the government can take more. Also, charities help specific groups of people. That is why social programs are necessary. Some people do not fall in to a certain group.

Now, I am just as benevolent as you. I don't want people to suffer, just like you. I wish for everyone to have enough food, clothing, housing, and medical care, and I contribute my time AND money to charitable causes in my community. I'm not a less caring person than you, I am not more greedy than you, I just have a completely different perspective and understanding of things than you. I know that your way doesn't work, and actually creates MORE poverty in the end. I know that your ideas have failed every time they have been tried, because they stifle the human spirit and freedom to succeed. And if I truly did not care, I wouldn't have ever bothered responding to you.

Huh? You're contradicting yourself. Remember, you wrote, "The more you levy tax burdens, the more greedy people become. They find ways around your devices, loopholes, catch-22s, shelters" and I agreed with you. That is exactly what people do. That is exactly what people did many years ago when taxes on the wealthy were high, very high. You wrote, "Greed is a fact of the human condition, it exists whether we like it or not, and there isn't a damn thing we can do about it." Again, absolutely correct. That's why increasing taxes is not going to stifle the human spirit.

Did you read "Atlas Shrugged"? I got news for you. It was fiction. Entrepreneurs, top business people, are not going to stop making things. If someone stops developing in order to protest someone will come along and pick up where they left off. How do I know? I know because you were correct. Greed is a fact of the human condition. Taxing people will not cure greed just as it will not stifle the human spirit.

You wrote, "I just have a completely different perspective and understanding of things than you." Yes, you do. Being a greedy person it is natural you would hold the position you do but as long as you think you'll make a buck and get to keep a part of it you'll keep trying. As you said greed is a fact of the human condition. However, there are people who are not quite so greedy and that is the way the world is going. How do I know? I know that by watching poor countries getting first world jobs. While one can debate the pros and cons and reasons the fact is the jobs are helping the people in those countries. So, you see Dix, sharing is already happening and it going to continue and depending on where you stand it will either get worse or better.

Consider bank interest rates. They're below the cost of living meaning the people with money in the bank are losing money. Consider the companies one may invest in. A lot are overseas. So, the wealthy either help support those poor countries by investing in companies that moved there or they leave their money in the bank and lose.

Get with the program, Dix. The world is changing. Resistance, like voting for Romney, is futile.

[USFREEDOM911]

How many times do I have to tell you that is NOT what I am advocating. I'll put it in simple terms. If everyone has a dinner and one guy has 50 dinners, fine. If one person does not have a dinner then the guy with 50 dinners gives one to the guy who has no dinner leaving the 50-dinner guy with 49 dinners. Now do you understand?

But you're forcing the guy to give up a dinner and if they are his, why should he be forced to give up any?
AND
How do you know that the guy might have had 60 dinners and has already given 10 away, so why should be now have to give yet another one?

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

How many times do I have to tell you that is NOT what I am advocating. I'll put it in simple terms. If everyone has a dinner and one guy has 50 dinners, fine. If one person does not have a dinner then the guy with 50 dinners gives one to the guy who has no dinner leaving the 50-dinner guy with 49 dinners. Now do you understand?

So... If I happen to notice someone doesn't have a TV, I can come to your house and take one to give to them, since you have more than one? And if you happen to own a TV shop, I can come there and take as many as I need, to give to all the people in your town who don't have a TV and don't have money to buy one?

You see, the problem here is, you are meddling in the affairs of others. It's not up to you to decide what I give, if I have given fairly, or if I gave enough. It's particularly troubling you seem to want to hand over your freedoms and rights to government, in order to do this. If you want to give to the poor, sell some of your old cars or set aside your pond building project, go out and find some needy family, and help them, Apple! Don't displace your greed onto me, I can make up my own mind on who to help.

And many go hungry when feeding a person can cost very little. Homes are empty across the country when people are homeless. There is a suburb near Las Vegas there were/are 167,000 vacant homes. Empty. Abandoned. And they are deteriorating due to insects, etc. http://www.lvrj.com/business/nevada-...118026629.html Have you ever heard of such an absurd way for a society to function?

The housing bubble was created by the government implementing the exact social policies you claimed would help the needy! You see, Democrats pushed for, and got, low interest housing loans for poor people. The poor people took the low interest loans and built houses, then couldn't afford the mortgage payments, so they were eventually foreclosed, and are now empty.

And I will challenge you once again to back up your 'people starving' claims... Show me ONE example of a person who has died of involuntary starvation in America since 1940? They don't fucking exist, Apple! Even people who have absolutely nothing, and are homeless, can get a hot meal at any number of shelters. The Salvation Army is present in almost every city in America, and they have never turned away a starving soul.

You told us you have a big investment in Germany. You told us you don't want to bring the money here due to taxes. I don't need to hear any more in order to figure out what type of person you are.

Well, I am a smart person. I had rather have money in Germany, than to give it to Socialists to blow on things like giving poor people houses they can't afford.

To be completely honest, I would LOVE for the government to suspend taxation on repatriated wealth. I would transfer my funds to an American bank account, and probably open a business of some sort. Now, I can only imagine there must be others like me, who have wealth overseas, but aren't motivated to bring it back home. Some economists estimate there is approximately $10 trillion in American dollars abroad, what do you imagine the influx of that would mean to our economy?

As for reversing my position, you're delusional.

Really?
"Income is income. It doesn't matter where it comes from. All income should be taxed the same." (Except poor people and income from gov't assistance.)
"Some foreign resorts advise you to stay near the resorts... you don't want America turning into that, do you?" (Followed by me reminding you of Detroit)
"Capitalists have had 80 years to bring something to the plate, it's time for a new idea." (followed by claims you aren't a Socialist.)

Finally you said something correct. Yes, people will continue to be greedy and figure out ways to get/make money. More on that later.

No, finally you acknowledged something I said was correct. But it's good to know you now understand you can't eliminate greed through taxation, that's a start.

If he has more than $2,000 to part with the government can take more. Also, charities help specific groups of people. That is why social programs are necessary. Some people do not fall in to a certain group.

Well the point is, the more government takes from him, the less he will give. As for actual HELP for actual NEEDY people, is much more efficiently handled by the NPOs. Dollar for dollar, more of your actual donations go to helping people, than any program ever instituted by ANY government agency. So $2,000 in taxation, would equal $400 in actual HELP for people in NEED, the rest is eaten up in governmental costs. If I were poor, I would think $2,000 would benefit me more than $400, and I really wouldn't care if it came from the government or a private donor. Yes... charities target specific groups of people... generally known as THE NEEDY you dumbass.

Huh? You're contradicting yourself. Remember, you wrote, "The more you levy tax burdens, the more greedy people become. They find ways around your devices, loopholes, catch-22s, shelters" and I agreed with you. That is exactly what people do. That is exactly what people did many years ago when taxes on the wealthy were high, very high. You wrote, "Greed is a fact of the human condition, it exists whether we like it or not, and there isn't a damn thing we can do about it." Again, absolutely correct. That's why increasing taxes is not going to stifle the human spirit.

You are getting confused and re-organizing what I have written. I never said that raising taxes stifles the human spirit. I said, Socialism and Communism stifle the human spirit.

Again, I will note your progress in understanding you can't defeat greed, and increasing tax rates only promotes MORE greed.

Did you read "Atlas Shrugged"? I got news for you. It was fiction. Entrepreneurs, top business people, are not going to stop making things. If someone stops developing in order to protest someone will come along and pick up where they left off. How do I know? I know because you were correct. Greed is a fact of the human condition. Taxing people will not cure greed just as it will not stifle the human spirit.

Got news for you, we've already stopped making things! That's precisely the reason we have a trade deficit. Greedy people aren't interested in making things which aren't profitable to make. They also aren't interested in handing over more of their wealth to a Socialist debacle, and so, they've taken their marbles and gone home... or maybe, sent their marbles to Indonesia? In any even't, our manufacturing sector is shot, and I have news for you, it ain't coming back anytime soon.

You wrote, "I just have a completely different perspective and understanding of things than you." Yes, you do. Being a greedy person it is natural you would hold the position you do but as long as you think you'll make a buck and get to keep a part of it you'll keep trying. As you said greed is a fact of the human condition. However, there are people who are not quite so greedy and that is the way the world is going. How do I know? I know that by watching poor countries getting first world jobs. While one can debate the pros and cons and reasons the fact is the jobs are helping the people in those countries. So, you see Dix, sharing is already happening and it going to continue and depending on where you stand it will either get worse or better.

Consider bank interest rates. They're below the cost of living meaning the people with money in the bank are losing money. Consider the companies one may invest in. A lot are overseas. So, the wealthy either help support those poor countries by investing in companies that moved there or they leave their money in the bank and lose.

Get with the program, Dix. The world is changing. Resistance, like voting for Romney, is futile.

Actually, I am not a greedy person. I am frugal, and smart with my money, but I am very benevolent as well. As I said, I would LOVE for government to suspend taxation of repatriated wealth, I would be in hog heaven! My money would be almost immediately put to work in the economy, as would trillions of other repatriated dollars, but you will have none of it. In your mind, it is better to keep trying to figure out ways to punish my success and steal my wealth, while you pretend to be Robin Hood on a futile mission to stamp out greed.

[Guns Guns Guns]

So... If I happen to notice someone doesn't have a TV, I can come to your house and take one to give to them, since you have more than one? And if you happen to own a TV shop, I can come there and take as many as I need, to give to all the people in your town who don't have a TV and don't have money to buy one? You see, the problem here is, you are meddling in the affairs of others. It's not up to you to decide what I give, if I have given fairly, or if I gave enough. It's particularly troubling you seem to want to hand over your freedoms and rights to government, in order to do this. If you want to give to the poor, sell some of your old cars or set aside your pond building project, go out and find some needy family, and help them, Apple! Don't displace your greed onto me, I can make up my own mind on who to help. The housing bubble was created by the government implementing the exact social policies you claimed would help the needy! You see, Democrats pushed for, and got, low interest housing loans for poor people. The poor people took the low interest loans and built houses, then couldn't afford the mortgage payments, so they were eventually foreclosed, and are now empty. And I will challenge you once again to back up your 'people starving' claims... Show me ONE example of a person who has died of involuntary starvation in America since 1940? They don't fucking exist, Apple! Even people who have absolutely nothing, and are homeless, can get a hot meal at any number of shelters. The Salvation Army is present in almost every city in America, and they have never turned away a starving soul. Well, I am a smart person. I had rather have money in Germany, than to give it to Socialists to blow on things like giving poor people houses they can't afford. To be completely honest, I would LOVE for the government to suspend taxation on repatriated wealth. I would transfer my funds to an American bank account, and probably open a business of some sort. Now, I can only imagine there must be others like me, who have wealth overseas, but aren't motivated to bring it back home. Some economists estimate there is approximately $10 trillion in American dollars abroad, what do you imagine the influx of that would mean to our economy? Really? "Income is income. It doesn't matter where it comes from. All income should be taxed the same." (Except poor people and income from gov't assistance.) "Some foreign resorts advise you to stay near the resorts... you don't want America turning into that, do you?" (Followed by me reminding you of Detroit) "Capitalists have had 80 years to bring something to the plate, it's time for a new idea." (followed by claims you aren't a Socialist.) No, finally you acknowledged something I said was correct. But it's good to know you now understand you can't eliminate greed through taxation, that's a start. Well the point is, the more government takes from him, the less he will give. As for actual HELP for actual NEEDY people, is much more efficiently handled by the NPOs. Dollar for dollar, more of your actual donations go to helping people, than any program ever instituted by ANY government agency. So $2,000 in taxation, would equal $400 in actual HELP for people in NEED, the rest is eaten up in governmental costs. If I were poor, I would think $2,000 would benefit me more than $400, and I really wouldn't care if it came from the government or a private donor. Yes... charities target specific groups of people... generally known as THE NEEDY you dumbass. You are getting confused and re-organizing what I have written. I never said that raising taxes stifles the human spirit. I said, Socialism and Communism stifle the human spirit. Again, I will note your progress in understanding you can't defeat greed, and increasing tax rates only promotes MORE greed. Got news for you, we've already stopped making things! That's precisely the reason we have a trade deficit. Greedy people aren't interested in making things which aren't profitable to make. They also aren't interested in handing over more of their wealth to a Socialist debacle, and so, they've taken their marbles and gone home... or maybe, sent their marbles to Indonesia? In any even't, our manufacturing sector is shot, and I have news for you, it ain't coming back anytime soon. Actually, I am not a greedy person. I am frugal, and smart with my money, but I am very benevolent as well. As I said, I would LOVE for government to suspend taxation of repatriated wealth, I would be in hog heaven! My money would be almost immediately put to work in the economy, as would trillions of other repatriated dollars, but you will have none of it. In your mind, it is better to keep trying to figure out ways to punish my success and steal my wealth, while you pretend to be Robin Hood on a futile mission to stamp out greed.

All that, and still no verifiable facts?

[apple0154]

But you're forcing the guy to give up a dinner and if they are his, why should he be forced to give up any?

Because he's a member of a group known as "society".

AND
How do you know that the guy might have had 60 dinners and has already given 10 away, so why should be now have to give yet another one?

Why wouldn't we know? I'm sure someone could verify that fact.

[apple0154]

So... If I happen to notice someone doesn't have a TV, I can come to your house and take one to give to them, since you have more than one? And if you happen to own a TV shop, I can come there and take as many as I need, to give to all the people in your town who don't have a TV and don't have money to buy one?

As I’ve explained numerous times it has nothing to do with equality but you are having difficulty grasping that point so it looks like I’ll have to break this down further. So, we’ll start with, “Is a TV one of life’s necessities?”

You see, the problem here is, you are meddling in the affairs of others. It's not up to you to decide what I give, if I have given fairly, or if I gave enough. It's particularly troubling you seem to want to hand over your freedoms and rights to government, in order to do this. If you want to give to the poor, sell some of your old cars or set aside your pond building project, go out and find some needy family, and help them, Apple! Don't displace your greed onto me, I can make up my own mind on who to help.

No, the group, represented by the government, will decide as long as you are part of the group just like they decided that if you bring your money back here you will be taxed. Get used to it.

The housing bubble was created by the government implementing the exact social policies you claimed would help the needy! You see, Democrats pushed for, and got, low interest housing loans for poor people. The poor people took the low interest loans and built houses, then couldn't afford the mortgage payments, so they were eventually foreclosed, and are now empty.

Predatory lending. Low interest rates to start and then raise them. It’s like buying something and not knowing what the ultimate price will be.

And I will challenge you once again to back up your 'people starving' claims... Show me ONE example of a person who has died of involuntary starvation in America since 1940? They don't fucking exist, Apple! Even people who have absolutely nothing, and are homeless, can get a hot meal at any number of shelters. The Salvation Army is present in almost every city in America, and they have never turned away a starving soul.

One does not have to die. I said people were starving. They lack the money to buy nutritious meals which results in contracting illnesses and diseases and where does that lead? It leads to medical care and we all know that boondoggle that Obama is trying to change.

So, you’re against people being fed properly and you’re against people receiving medical attention when they become ill due to not being fed properly. You’re a real nice guy, Dix.

Well, I am a smart person. I had rather have money in Germany, than to give it to Socialists to blow on things like giving poor people houses they can't afford.

Great. So you’re a happy man with no complaints.

To be completely honest, I would LOVE for the government to suspend taxation on repatriated wealth. I would transfer my funds to an American bank account, and probably open a business of some sort. Now, I can only imagine there must be others like me, who have wealth overseas, but aren't motivated to bring it back home. Some economists estimate there is approximately $10 trillion in American dollars abroad, what do you imagine the influx of that would mean to our economy?

Of course you and others would love to bring that money back. Enjoy that money in this society while not contributing to it. However, there is always the alternative. Go to where the money is.

"Income is income. It doesn't matter where it comes from. All income should be taxed the same." (Except poor people and income from gov't assistance.)

Exactly. When you gave your children an allowance did you ask for part of it back?

"Some foreign resorts advise you to stay near the resorts... you don't want America turning into that, do you?" (Followed by me reminding you of Detroit)

I know it’s difficult for you to comprehend so I’ll spell it out. The conditions are worsening. Larger areas are becoming dangerous areas. Or put another way people are required to build more and more gated communities.

If you are still having difficulties following along let me know.

"Capitalists have had 80 years to bring something to the plate, it's time for a new idea." (followed by claims you aren't a Socialist.)

Again, difficulty in comprehension. The free market, the invisible hand….things associated with unrestricted capitalism has shown us they do not work. Even Greenspan admitted to Congress he was wrong. His philosophy, his idea of how people and society worked was wrong. Just like you’re wrong.

No, finally you acknowledged something I said was correct. But it's good to know you now understand you can't eliminate greed through taxation, that's a start.

Looks like I have to repeat myself again. No one is trying to change the nature of certain human beings. There will always be those chasing the dollar regardless of how much or how little they ultimately get to keep and that’s fine. Let them connive and seek loopholes and devise all sorts of shady ways to grab the dollar but remember these wise words, “Never let a crisis go to waste.” Let the greedy do whatever they want (within reason, of course) to grab all they can and then tax them. It saves the government time. The money is all in one place.

Well the point is, the more government takes from him, the less he will give. As for actual HELP for actual NEEDY people, is much more efficiently handled by the NPOs. Dollar for dollar, more of your actual donations go to helping people, than any program ever instituted by ANY government agency. So $2,000 in taxation, would equal $400 in actual HELP for people in NEED, the rest is eaten up in governmental costs. If I were poor, I would think $2,000 would benefit me more than $400, and I really wouldn't care if it came from the government or a private donor. Yes... charities target specific groups of people... generally known as THE NEEDY you dumbass.

Yes, dumbass. Certain groups of needy. Take a church charity, for example. As I mentioned before if a widow who sings in the choir requires financial help you can bet she’ll receive it before the single mother with 5 kids who doesn’t attend church regularly. Of course, the church will continue to preach how special children are and condemn abortion while the children go hungry.

You are getting confused and re-organizing what I have written. I never said that raising taxes stifles the human spirit. I said, Socialism and Communism stifle the human spirit.

Then why are you disagreeing with what I write? I’m for taxing the people and letting them acquire the money any way they want (again, within reason).

Again, I will note your progress in understanding you can't defeat greed, and increasing tax rates only promotes MORE greed.

Great! The government will know where the money is thereby making it easier to collect.

Got news for you, we've already stopped making things! That's precisely the reason we have a trade deficit. Greedy people aren't interested in making things which aren't profitable to make. They also aren't interested in handing over more of their wealth to a Socialist debacle, and so, they've taken their marbles and gone home... or maybe, sent their marbles to Indonesia? In any even't, our manufacturing sector is shot, and I have news for you, it ain't coming back anytime soon.

Then let them keep their marbles in Indonesia or Germany or some other country. Let them enjoy the money there. Why are they, like you, bitching about bringing the money back here? Go to the money. Live in the society where they make their money. Sounds logical to me. They love money and they make money in those societies so they must like them? Or do they?

Actually, I am not a greedy person. I am frugal, and smart with my money, but I am very benevolent as well. As I said, I would LOVE for government to suspend taxation of repatriated wealth, I would be in hog heaven! My money would be almost immediately put to work in the economy, as would trillions of other repatriated dollars, but you will have none of it. In your mind, it is better to keep trying to figure out ways to punish my success and steal my wealth, while you pretend to be Robin Hood on a futile mission to stamp out greed.

You’re very benevolent but the government wanting to help the needy with your money is stealing and punishing. Yea, right. Sure, Dix. The truth is you’re not interested in helping the needy. You’re interested in giving to those you want to give to and to hell with the others. You want to decide who is needy and who isn’t. You want to be little god. Sorry. That doesn’t work here.

[USFREEDOM911]

Because he's a member of a group known as "society".



Why wouldn't we know? I'm sure someone could verify that fact.

It's no one's business as to how many dinners he gave, or to whom.
Society has nothing to do with taking what others have.

[zappasguitar]

But you're forcing the guy to give up a dinner and if they are his, why should he be forced to give up any?
AND
How do you know that the guy might have had 60 dinners and has already given 10 away, so why should be now have to give yet another one?

Because others are going without dinner and it's the DECENT thing to do?

I understand that compassion and basic human decency are foreign concepts to you, but do try to keep up.

[apple0154]

It's no one's business as to how many dinners he gave, or to whom.
Society has nothing to do with taking what others have.

It has everything to do with contributing.

You know what's strange? Conservatives/Repubs label themselves as the party of family. They claim they're such strong proponents of family. They're for traditional marriage, against single parent families, against unwed mothers, claim families are the main building block of society, if families operated properly there would be less crime....in other words they champion the way families operate but when it comes to society they take a completely different approach. No one is obliged to help anyone. No one has to care about anyone.....it just seems strange they don't apply any of the "traits" that they claim are so important. I wonder why that is.

[USFREEDOM911]

It has everything to do with contributing.

You know what's strange? Conservatives/Repubs label themselves as the party of family. They claim they're such strong proponents of family. They're for traditional marriage, against single parent families, against unwed mothers, claim families are the main building block of society, if families operated properly there would be less crime....in other words they champion the way families operate but when it comes to society they take a completely different approach. No one is obliged to help anyone. No one has to care about anyone.....it just seems strange they don't apply any of the "traits" that they claim are so important. I wonder why that is.

Your lack of cognitive comprehension obviously allowed you to miss the part where I offered that he had already "contributed" 10 dinners, so why should he forced to "contribute" more
Plus it's no one's business how many he "contributed" or to who.

[apple0154]

Your lack of cognitive comprehension obviously allowed you to miss the part where I offered that he had already "contributed" 10 dinners, so why should he forced to "contribute" more

Because there are people in need and his contributing will not result in any inconvience to him.

Plus it's no one's business how many he "contributed" or to who.

It is government's business. It is the business of the community, the country, the society in which he lives. He most likely wouldn't have acquired those extra dinners if he lived in Somalia. The society in which he lives offered him the opportunity and the decent thing to do would be to contribute to that society.

Rampant capitalism works fine when there is plenty to grab such as when the country was founded. There was land for everyone. Wild animals for food. Regardless of how much one grabbed there was plenty for everyone. Such is not the case anymore. Changes have to be made and they are being made, worldwide. A one world government is being implemented, one step at a time. Logic and common sense dictate doing so or the result will be wars over resources. Of course, the next war will destroy the enemy's resources (radiation) as well as the enemy so war's not really a solution.

[USFREEDOM911]

Because there are people in need and his contributing will not result in any inconvience to him.



It is government's business. It is the business of the community, the country, the society in which he lives. He most likely wouldn't have acquired those extra dinners if he lived in Somalia. The society in which he lives offered him the opportunity and the decent thing to do would be to contribute to that society.

Rampant capitalism works fine when there is plenty to grab such as when the country was founded. There was land for everyone. Wild animals for food. Regardless of how much one grabbed there was plenty for everyone. Such is not the case anymore. Changes have to be made and they are being made, worldwide. A one world government is being implemented, one step at a time. Logic and common sense dictate doing so or the result will be wars over resources. Of course, the next war will destroy the enemy's resources (radiation) as well as the enemy so war's not really a solution.

Who are you to say it's no inconviance to him?
He already contibuted; but Liberals always want more, except when it comes to them "giving".

There will be no "one world government", except in your world of hack.